"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them..." - Thomas Jefferson

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Dickbag Watch! The irony is palpable!

Why oh why have I not yet unsubscribed from the RSS feed for Chuck Morse's (AKA "Dickbag's") blog? Do I enjoy suffering? Do I enjoy mentally puzzling out the twisted logic that goes on in the mind of a deranged individual? Do I have a craving for spelling and grammatical errors? Am I just too lazy?

Answer: No, I just love irony.

Today Dickbag is annoyed that Barack Obama's old minister does nasty things like malevolently characterize a diverse and broad group of individuals as if they all have the same terrible views. Indeed, these views may not even exist in many of them at all.

Let us gain wisdom from Dickbag's meanderings!

The left just doesn’t get it.

They just don’t realize that most Americans are simply not burdened with the same malevolent hatred for this country that is the hallmark of their debased outlook. Most Americans don’t damn their country, as did Obama’s minister, or [sic] do they blame their country for the ills that beset other countries, many of which suffer under the stultifying yoke of the very same left-wing systems that are so admired by the elites who dominate the Democratic Party and by the likes of the rabble rousing [sic] spiritual councilor to Barak [sic] Obama.

[...]

The vile speeches of Obama’s minister, like the Wellstone rally, provide rare examples of left-wing arrogance on display for all to see in all of it's [sic] ugliness.

First, bonus points to Dickbag for using the word "stultifying." That word-of-the-day calendar is paying off! Points off for not knowing how to spell "Barack" though.*

And yes, it sure does suck when people characterize a hugely diverse class of the citizenry in a negative and totally inaccurate manner, doesn't it?

Pot, meet kettle.

*Seriously, he doesn't know how to spell Barack Obama's name! He always spells it "Barak," even in the title of the post. Maybe I should call him "Dikbag?"

23 comments:

They just don’t realize that most Americans are simply not burdened with the same malevolent hatred for this country that is the hallmark of their debased outlook.

A debased outlook like that of Jerry Falwell, who said of the September 11th attacks, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"? Or of Pat Robertson, who immediately concurred with that statement? Or of Billy Graham, the man who brought George W. Bush to Christ, who said of Jewish influence in America, "This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain," that Jews "swarm around me and are friendly to me [but] they don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country."?

John Hagee: "All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades."

Rod Parsley: "The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion [Islam] destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."

Why would anyone care about them though? I mean, just because McCain sought and embraced their endorsements and has appeared with them and considers them spiritual advisers is no reason to think he believes the same hateful things, right?

That's a good idea, Chuck. After all, why should you bother to learn how to spell the name of one of the most important political figures in the country? That's a task for the little people, not an important journalist!

But who are you going to send it to for fact-checking, assurance of logical consistency, and general avoidance of douchebaggery?

Chuck, I made fun of your misspellings primarily in a footnote. You're the one who chose to only respond to that relatively insignificant (albeit telling) point.

In case you missed it, the main point of my post was that you're a total hypocrite, seeing as you're doing exactly the same thing that you're condemning Obama's pastor for doing, just with a different target.

Which one might take as an indication that if the Democrats "have blown it" then the right-wing folks like yourself have blown it just as hard. Perhaps you should also look at my first comment pointing out some of the statements made by McCain's endorsers.

Frankly, most of the "points" you make don't have enough basis in reality to make for a decent discussion. So I often have to settle for simply exposing their inanity.

Accepting an endorsement from a pastor with questionable views is a far cry from attending a pastors church for 20 years, having the pastor in question preside over ones wedding and baptism of ones children, donating $22,500.00 tp the said pastors church, and deriving the title of ones book from a sermon delivered by the pastor in question.

Attending a church doesn't require you to agree with every single thing the pastor says. Obama has clearly stated that he doesn't agree with these statements, but his relationship with the positive aspects of the church was good enough to move beyond that. I'm also pretty sure that most churchgoers feel their church is more than just the dude behind the podium.

On the other end of the spectrum, accepting a political endorsement from a bigot that you don't have any particularly deep relationship with suggests an acceptance of their "debased outlook" (due to the absence of mitigating factors).

See, there is a difference! It's between one's private religious worship and one's public political affiliations.

It's a pretty nuanced issue, really. Give it some time and thought and you might even come to understand it!

The Reverend Wright's endorcement of Obama is very public as is the the endorcements coming from Bill Ayres, a domestic terrorist and the new Black Panther Party, a radical Marxist group. The point of my blog is not a critique of the Reverend Wright's ministry per se but rather his extreme anti-Americanism. I reject your contention that traditional Protestant ministers are bigots when they preach moral values contained in the Bible. They are not railing against people, as Reverend Wright has done against white people because of their race, but rather they speak out against the promotion of activities they view as immoral. You and I may not agree with them, or the manner in which they express themselves, but it is inaccurate to label them as bigots.

And yes, I would hope that Wright would support Obama. Though he cannot use his religious position to do so, as it's in violation of tax code.

The rest of what you say is similarly bullshit. Railing against a group of people and blaming them for a hurricane is blatant bigotry. And when you say "they are not railing against people" you are revealing yourself to be just as abhorrent a bigot.

The bible, incidentally, condemns eating shrimp just as often as it condemns homosexuality, and far less often than it condemns divorce. It also says you should stone disobedient children to death.

So don't give me that bullshit about biblical morality. We pick and choose what we want, and these bigots wield their religion as a weapon against people they hate. That's all there is to it.

You don't understand the Bible. Rev. Wright is being described as engaging in a prophetic style when he says that this country got what it deserved on 9/11 because of the atom bomb or because we support the State of Israel and this is no different than a conservative preacher getting up and claiming that a group is responsible for a natural disaster because of what they do. I think both claims are crazy but neither crosses the line in terms of being bigoted in my opinion, only insufferably arrogant. As long as they don't advocate violence or intolerance than I view this type of religiosity with tolerance myself even if I don't agree. The specific problem I have with Rev. Wright, and the problem Obama is having, is that his "prophesies" are nti-American. The New Black Panthers were listed as endorsing Obama on the Obama official campaign website until they pulled it off yesterday.

The New Black Panthers were listed as endorsing Obama on the Obama official campaign website until they pulled it off yesterday.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and try to explain this to you using small words. Obama's campaign website has a rather large and popular section called my.barackobama.com. It's a community site, self-policed, that allows anyone to create an account and post content - sort of like Blogger. When offensive content is reported, it's removed. In this case, someone created a profile for the "new black panther party" announcing its "endorsement" of Obama. The Unicow linked to a similar "endorsement" by Sean Hannity above.

Fox News reported this as an actual endorsement being trumpeted by the Obama campaign. This is like Fox News finding this blog and reporting that Abraham Lincoln is alive and posting on the internet.

Just to drive home the point above, I think 1970s Abraham Lincoln and the Unicow are among the most brilliant thinkers of our time. I wholeheartedly endorse every sentiment that has ever appeared on this blog - nay, every remark that has ever passed their lips.

"As long as they don't advocate violence or intolerance than I view this type of religiosity with tolerance myself even if I don't agree."

Parsley has all but called for religious war against Muslims. Both Parsley and Hagee clearly advocate intolerance against gays.

Tell me, is hatred of your fellow man more of an "American" value than criticism of the government? In a country that was founded on criticism of England and has enshrined protections of civil liberties even for those you disagree with? Maybe it seems that way for someone who feels so comfortable demonizing straw-man "liberals," but not for the rest of us.

For that matter, I could argue that constantly whining about paying taxes to the federal government (as is so common amongst conservatives) is pretty "anti-American." A true patriot would be proud to support their country.

Click on Chuck's name on that last reacharound post and compare it to the earlier ones. That should put your concerns to rest.

Anyway, I hate to disappoint, but I've decided this will be my last post about Dickbag.

There's often a debate about whether it's better to respond to idiots like him or whether it's better to just ignore them, lest you unwittingly help spread their stupidity.

Normally, I come down on the side of responding to the morons, at least when they have a public forum and the ability to influence public discourse to some degree (this is why I so often address the S&E).

But I've come to realize a few things:

1) I almost certainly get more readers at PF than Dickbag does at his blog.2) Even though it's sort of fun to watch him make a fool of himself here, it can also get pretty annoying.3) Mocking him may actually encourage him.4) Judging from the lack of callers he got in Fitchburg and the lack of comments he got on his blog (prior to him totally disabling comments), nobody actually gives a shit what he says. So he's probably not actually influencing public discourse anyway.

Therefore:

5) I'm actually helping to spread his idiocy!

So, barring the extremely unlikely event of him getting some real notoriety, this is probably the last time I'm going to talk about him. Anyone looking for a debunking of his bullshit can find this site on Google easily enough, and it's not like he's going to come up with new ideas any time soon.

The hateful sack of shit can fade into obscurity on his own now. There are plenty of more relevant shitsacks left to set fire to. I'm done with him.

THIS IS THE UGLIEST AND MOST HATE FILLED SITE I'VE EVER SEEN AND I'VE HAD TO DEAL WITH MY SHARE OF UGLINESS AND HATE. I'VE ALWAYS DEALT WITH YOU POLITELY. I DIDN'T ASK TO BE INCLUDED HERE AND WOULD'VE PREFERRED THAT YOU DIDN'T BUT I SENSED THAT MAKING SUCH A REQUEST WOULD BE AN EXCERCISE IN FUTILITY.I'VE NOTICED THAT YOU HACKED INTO MY BLOGGER ACCOUNT, USED MY NAME FOR A POST YOU WROTE AND THEN COMMENTED ON THE NUMBER OF HITS MY SITE RECIEVED. I'VE SAVED THIS IN CASE I DECIDE TO FILE CHARGES.

Anybody can make a blogger account with any name they want, and obviously the "Chuck Morse" that made that last post was a totally separate account (not made by me, by the way). Click on the name, you'll see it doesn't point to you at all. One could just as easily go make an account with the name "The Unicow" and comment using that.

The point being made there was clearly that the supposed NBPP "endorsement" of Obama was as phony as the fake chuck morse's endorsement of me.

Furthermore, I don't actually know how many hits you get. My belief that I get more is simple conjecture based on the lack of comments your blog seemed to get.

So I'm not sure what charges you'd be filing, but it's safe to say you'd just be wasting your time.

Fitchburg is not an easy place. I did the best I could to provide a broadcast that I felt served the city and region. While I accept the fact that you don't agree with my politics, and while I appreciate civil debate, I don't deserve the type of offensive juvinile crap on this website. I'll be done with you when you take all of it off.

To flesh out that last comment a bit, let's look at the way things have gone down here.

- I happened to read your blog and discovered you characterizing liberals (of which I am one) as "burdened with malevolent hatred for this country," "debased," "elites" (which I guess was meant negatively), and "arrogant," among other nasty things.

- I found this pretty offensive and hateful (and indeed feel that we don't deserve that sort of shabby treatment), so made a quick post expressing my opinion that you're engaging in exactly the same sort of behavior that you're demonizing Wright for engaging in.

- You came here to complain about what I wrote, and in the process defended some pretty ugly biases towards gays. I also found that offensive.

- A commenter tried to illustrate how the NBPP "endorsement" of Obama is no more real than if someone registered an account using your name and used it to endorse me. I thought it was sort of clever, but you mistakenly thought I was hacking your Blogger account. If that were the case I wouldn't blame you for getting upset, but it wasn't.

- I decided this will be my last post about you, and gave my reasons for doing so. I got pretty frustrated and engaged in some (admittedly jerkish) ad-hominem attacks. Sure, not my best moment.

- You threatened a lawsuit for the imaginary "hacking" and now apparently expect me to remove my "offensive juvenile crap." Which is like 90% of what I write. That's my style!

Which brings us to where we are. Me offended by your incessant bashing of "liberals" and you offended by me calling you names for it.

I am no more likely to remove the stuff you find offensive than you are to remove the stuff I find offensive.

But I'm not trying to do anything besides respond to what you're saying. You have the right to go on bashing liberals (or me specifically, for that matter) all you like.

I do feel a little bad for hurting your feelings so much. But how do you think we "liberals" feel when we see someone characterizing us the way you so often do? It's not fun on either side.

That's the risk we take when we put our ideas out there. There are *plenty* of people who don't like what either of us have to say, and they have every right to make fun of us for it. I expected a member of the media to understand that.

Now, the sad thing is that if you had expressed hurt and asked me to please edit some of the nastier comments I've made, I would have probably done it. But veiled threats about not being "done with" me? Hopefully that was just a poor choice of words, because it's certainly not going to get you the result you want.

You claim you never wanted to be a part of this blog, but every time you respond you further your involvement, while I've made it clear that I'm simply not going to focus on you anymore. The wise move on your part would be to move on as well.